BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 529|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 529
Author: Gatto (D), et al.
Amended: 7/11/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/14/11
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Huff, Kehoe, Lowenthal,
Pavley, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Rubio
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Speed limits
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of
Transportation to revise its regulations so that state and
local authorities have greater flexibility in setting speed
limits on roads under their jurisdictions.
Senate Floor Amendments of 7/11/11 clarify that the bill
makes no changes to the Department of Transportation's
(Caltrans') processes for establishing traffic control
devices.
ANALYSIS : Existing California law requires Caltrans
after consultation with local agencies and public hearings,
CONTINUED
AB 529
Page
2
to adopt rules and regulations that prescribe uniform
standards and specifications for traffic control devices,
including the posting of speed limits. Caltrans adopts
these rules as the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), which among other things,
prescribes the process for setting speed limits in this
state.
Speed limits are generally -- in California and elsewhere
-- set in accordance with engineering and traffic surveys,
which measure prevailing vehicular speeds and establish the
limit at or near the 85th percentile (i.e., the speed that
15 percent of motorists exceed). California law uses the
85th percentile
to set speed limits, except in cases where:
1. The limit is set in state law, such as the 65 miles per
hour (MPH) limit on divided highways, 55 MPH on an
undivided highway, 25 MPH in residence districts, and 25
MPH in school zones; or
2. An engineering and traffic survey shows that other
safety-related factors suggest a lower speed limit to be
appropriate. These safety-related factors are accident
data; highway, traffic, and roadway conditions not
readily apparent to the driver; residential density; and
pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Based on these
safety-related factors, Caltrans regulations permit a
local jurisdiction to reduce a speed limit by 5 MPH from
the 85th percentile.
In cases where the 85th percentile speed is not an
increment of 5 MPH, the MUTCD directs a jurisdiction to
round to nearest 5 MPH increment. Thus, if the survey
shows an 85th percentile speed of 34 MPH, the jurisdiction
must set the speed limit at 35 MPH. The jurisdiction may
lower that speed limit by 5 MPH (i.e., to 30 MPH) if it
identifies and documents a safety-related factor. The
jurisdiction cannot, however, lower the speed limit by more
than 5 MPH, regardless of additional safety factors.
This bill:
1. Requires that Caltrans revise the MUTCD to require
CONTINUED
AB 529
Page
3
Caltrans and local authorities to round speed limits to
the nearest 5 MPH of the 85th percentile speed.
2. Allows, in instances where Caltrans or the local
authority should round up to reach the nearest 5 MPH,
that Caltrans or the local authority may instead round
down but then may not reduce the posted speed limit by a
5 MPH increment for a safety-related factor. (Thus in
the example above where the 85th percentile speed is 34
MPH, the authority may set a speed limit of 30 MPH, but
may not also further reduce that speed by an additional
5 MPH due to a safety factor).
3. Clarifies that this bill makes no changes to Caltrans'
processes for establishing traffic control devices.
Comments
The author notes that prior to 2004, a local government
could set speed limits within 5 MPH of the 85th percentile,
which allowed local governments to round speed limits down.
In 2004, Caltrans changed the wording of the MUTCD so that
an authority setting speed limits not prescribed in statute
should set those speed limits at the nearest 5 MPH
increment of the 85th percentile and so that an authority
had to provide written demonstration of the safety-related
factor to lower that speed limit by an additional 5 MPH due
to that factor. In 2009, Caltrans changed its MUTCD again
to require, rather than just recommend, that a state or
local authority set speed limits to the nearest 5 MPH
increment.
The author notes that Caltrans made the change from
"within" to the "nearest" 5 MPH increment in anticipation
of change in the federal rules that guide the process
states use to set speed limits. The author notes that the
change in the federal rules never came to fruition.
Further, the proponents report that local governments have
found providing written evidence of a safety-related factor
to satisfy the courts that speed limits need to be lowered
has proven difficult and costly. The idea, however, of
raising speed limits remains onerous to city councils and
local authorities. The author introduced this bill to give
local governments the authority to round up or down to a 5
CONTINUED
AB 529
Page
4
MPH increment.
Informational hearing . During the 2009-10 legislative
session, speed limit bills failed passage in both the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the
Assembly Transportation Committee. As a result, in the
fall of 2009, the two committees held a joint informational
hearing entitled, "Setting Speed Limits in California."
The committees heard substantive testimony demonstrating
that the majority of motorists (85 percent) will drive at a
rate of speed at which they feel safe and that speed limits
serve a coordinating function by reducing dispersion in
driving speed and the risk of conflict between vehicles.
The committees also heard evidence that artificially
lowering speed limits below the 85th percentile does not
reduce speeds but instead only increases violations and can
create a speed trap, a method by which municipalities may
raise revenue but which are illegal under California law.
Witnesses presented further evidence at the joint hearing
that showed increased enforcement, combined with traffic
calming measures (center islands, curb extensions, speed
humps, etc.), was the most effective method of changing
driver behavior and reducing driver speed.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/11/11)
Cities of El Cajon, Glendale, Lemoore, Long Beach,
Pasadena, Santa Rosa, and Thousand Oaks
Glendale Police Department
League of California Cities
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Ventura County Sheriff's Office
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/19/11
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
CONTINUED
AB 529
Page
5
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman,
Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara,
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller,
Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby,
Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Gorell, Grove
JJA:kc 7/11/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED